Tabroom.com

MOUNT VERNON Invitational NIETOC TOC BIDS available

2024 — Mount Vernon, WA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Yong-Wei Interlake HS

Guy Bloom Guangdong Tigers Independent

Last changed on Mon March 25, 2024 at 11:13 PM EDT

bronx science 23, umich 27

add me to the chain: guybloom@umich.edu

If you think Pink Frosted Donut defeated Egg Roll in Food Battle 2012, strike me.

also, i am looking for a team to coach, so if youre interested please email me using the above address

Top Level

don't do one of the isms, obviously there's no clear threshold for what makes something round-ending worthy but i will use my discretion.

i don't think i'm very good at debating, and i think a lot of the people i've judged who are in high school probably could beat me in a debate round fairly easily. that being said, i do think about the activity and the way arguments interact a fair deal and i'd like to think of myself as a pretty competent judge for most things. i don't know very many things, though, and if your strategy relies on the inner workings of the courts or dense economic concepts that i would have had to take a class to understand, dumb it down a little. just make writing my decision easier. my debate relevant substantive knowledge kind of begins and ends in psychoanalysis (and i don't think i'm a huge expert in that either, though i do enjoy reading it for fun).

i like clean decisions and will try my hardest to formulate a decision which is a string of discrete yes/no questions rather than sliding scales. obviously, i almost always have to do some linear calculus with the risks of different pieces of offense, but i try to do this as little as possible. the MOST unsatisfying rfds to me were ones which followed the format "well, they were just ahead on this argument so i voted ____". instead, i'll try to say something like: "x argument was won by the aff, since y warrant was conceded which zeros the neg's response z." again, obviously, most defensive arguments do not ZERO the other teams offense, but i hope you get the point i'm trying to illustrate. deciding things like this makes the most sense to me, so if you use this type of judge instruction i will probably be more likely to vote for you.

in highschool i read mostly k stuff, but i would honestly say that in clash debates i find the policy side more convincing. regardless, i am confident that i can judge these rounds impartially.

read whatever you want. my senior year, i read a psychoanalysis aff, a hegel aff, and an aff that said we should kill babies because christianity is true. on the neg, we went for psychoanalysis, wipeout, and "high theory" stuff.

i very strongly believe that debate is a game and as such i will judge the round strictly based on my flow. i am willing to vote on arguments that could be defeated by a single well thought out sentence (and i have in the past). counterintuitively, this probably means i am better for the k than most because i am willing to jettison common sense and vote on arguments that are terrible and obviously untrue (which most answers to "only weigh links to the plan" and "extinction outweighs" unambiguously are). conversely, this means that if you are a team that relies on winning rounds in ways that do not involve my flow, i am not the judge for you. it's not personal; i simply would not know how to evaluate your performance and would probably end up voting against you if you debate an opponent who relies more strictly on the flow.

i'm not the best flower, but i try. start off a little slower and be sure to leave pen time for me. if you give me 5 subpoints in 8 seconds, i'll probably miss at least one.i honestly think most judges are much worse at flowing than they let on, and if pressed in the post round about something they didn't catch, will say something along the lines of "oh well i just thought it was too blippy" or "it was there, but not enough". i think this is cowardly. if i miss something and you ask me about it, i'll be upfront about how i missed it and tell you how it would have effected the round. i don't feel too bad about this, because some of the speeches i've heard are downright unflowable. record your blocks and try to flow them to alleviate this. i definitely make unforced errors sometimes, though, so if a line is very important or round ending worthy, make sure it's not just a second on point 3 subpoint c. to be clear, though, if it IS a second on point 3 subpoint c and i catch it, i'll vote on it. so do that at your own risk, i guess. i wouldn't advise it, since the chance your opponent catches it and i do not is orders of magnitudes higher than the chance that i catch it and your opponents do not.

adding this because it's really annoying me. picture this: the 1nc reads multiple advocacies, but 1nc cross ex does NOT clarify the status of the advocacies. the 2ac reads conditionality bad, says dispo solves, and perms every advocacy. the neg block, in this scenario, SHOULD NOT defend conditionality. it is a waste of time. you should instead say "we were dispo, you never asked, but it doesn't matter now since you've permuted everything". there are a few cases where this is not strategic, and where it lets the 1AR lock you out of a disad + case 2NR. but overwhelmingly this is not true, and the other potential 2NR is something like T.

feel free to postround, i won't take it personally. when i write decisions, i usually try to think of potential things i wouldn't be able to defend in the postround and write around that, and if i can't, i edit my decision accordingly. i think judges that DO care should probably put some more effort into their decisions and take the event more seriously, given that students give up their weekends and pay to attend tournaments (while judges give up their weekends and presumably GET paid to do the same).

all of the opinions i share below are just opinions that won't enter into my evaluation of a round.

Policy (aff) vs Policy (neg)

probably not the best here but i'm competent most of the time. explain acronyms.

cheaty counterplans are cool and i like competition debates. i enjoy clever perms.

zero risk is a logical extension of "dropped arguments are true"-- if you flat concede a piece of defense that the other team convincingly argues zeros your impact, i will give them that. i don't think this should be a controversial opinion-- it seems that most judges agree a dropped scenario starts at 100; this is just the inverse of that.

Policy (aff) vs T

i think ptiv needs an explicit counterinterp

limits seems to intuitively outweigh predictability. i think predictability is more of a yes/no question whereas limits are more of a sliding scale. this opinion is not widely accepted and as such i will default to both of them as a sliding scale.

Policy (aff) v K(Neg)

my honest opinion is that links to representations are an infinitely regressive standard that makes it impossible to be aff. this will have no bearing on how i judge debates.

framework is the first question i'll ask myself when deciding these rounds. i will NOT arbitrarily decide on some "middle ground" between the two interpretations; if the aff wins that the neg doesn't get reps links and the 2NR offense is a reps link, i will literally zero that link. conversely, if the neg wins that the aff doesn't get the plan, and the 2AR goes for only offense based on the consequences of the plan, i will not give it to them. i won't give a 1% risk of a link or a 1% risk of offense. i will ALWAYS decide a singular winner of the framework debate, and framework is not a "wash" unless one of the debaters says it is in their final rebuttal and i decide that they have won that it is.

i try to judge all debates like this ^, but what i've found is that i've overwhelmingly had to take a sort of "proof by cases" approach because framework is so hard to evaluate. for example, i'll find myself in the position of thinking the aff has unanswered fairness offense, the neg has unanswered epistemology offense, and there is no comparison done by either team, so i say to myself "well i know the aff wins if they win framework, but i also kind of think they win if the neg wins framework, so i vote aff and i don't have to decide who actually won framework". this almost always favors the aff because it is plausible for aff teams to win their representations are defensible and good, and in most cases it is implausible for the neg to win the link is a disad which turns or outweighs the case. so, my advice here is twofold. first, answer all of the offense and the defense on framework in the 2NR on point. spend time on framework, since you want me to be confident that you win it. second, outline very clearly why the link means you win under your model and why their offense doesn't apply. something like "even if they win securitization can be good, they have not won that it is epistemelogically valuable or beaten our argument that their specific form of securitization leads to interventions and more insidious forms of racism". or maybe, "even if their form of research is epistemelogically valuable, our offense uplayers that because we've proven that their performance in this round leads to psychic violence which you should unconditionally reject". just give me some delineation or distinction or something so that i can explain to the aff why they've lost and why their offense doesn't apply.

k tricks are cool. i dont think they're undignified or anything, and i won't hesitate to vote on a floating pik or "fiat is illusory" as long as its a developed argument in the block and not just a single line without a warrant.

i think in most cases, "links to the plan" are useless and don't get you anything. the perm double bind is just, like, true against these arguments. the one caveat to this isn't even really a "link to the plan", but if you generate mutual exclusivity off of the logical incongruence of the aff and the alt that's probably fine. i would be willing to vote on a 2NR on the setcol K that says decolonization solves the case PLUS some external impact, and it is mutually exclusive with the aff because fiating the plan necessitates the continued existence of the USFG. the reason i think this is a caveat is because it does not require winning the framework debate in any capacity; it is a competitive alternative that is more similar to a uniqueness counterplan than a kritik.

K (aff) vs Policy (Neg)

i think 1ac cross ex is crucial to establish disad links, grounds for impact turns, and counterplan competition.

most k affs link to cap good. 2as will gaslight you but having read a lot of "K" lit i can safely say that basically all of it starts with the presumption that capitalism is bad. that being said, policy teams should be a little less heavy handed with explaining this link. highlighting a line in their ev that says "capitalism" and some negatively connotated adjective is not going to be nearly as convincing as an explanation that uses the vocabulary of the 1ac and 2ac to explain how their theory of power condemns capitalism. this whole spiel is irrelevant if the 2ac bites the link, of course.

impact turns can be good because tons of K affs just say things that sound bad and assume theyre bad without any real investigation into why people say they're good. obviously don't cross any ethical boundaries or be bigoted.

K (aff) vs T (neg)

i'm pretty confident in my ability to judge these debates. i've been on the aff a lot more, but i agree with most everything the neg says in these debates, so i guess that evens out.

rewriting this part bc i think my views have changed a bit (but probably moreso that what was previously written did not accurately express how i felt). i think the approach to answering framework which relies on redefinitions of words in the resolution and a counterinterpretation is almost always incredibly unstrategic. no, the usfg is not an assemblage, and going for these types of arguments will make it incredibly easy for the negative to point out why your model is untenable. the 2ac can (and maybe should) read these arguments, but unless it is a technical crush it will be very hard to convince me that a more "open" or critical model of debate where everyone kinda just has to talk about something related to the resolution does not link to the limits disad. for this reason, i genuinely believe that for most k affs there is zero utility in defending a topic link. i think i'm in the minority there. i just think the impact turn to T is so much better than the middleground counterinterp and that, counterintuitively, defending a model in which anyone can read anything is probably easier than defending what i previously described (because the negative can easily win that the latter becomes the former, so you might as well just defend the former).

K (aff) vs K (neg)

framework is important to me here in terms of the sequence and filter i use to evaluate arguments.

no perms in method debates seems to overcorrect what is a very real issue. not giving the aff a perm feels nonsensical, but just letting them permute two mostly abstract ideas is obviously less than ideal. on the neg, i think its best to point out how their explanation of the perm might contradict the way the 1ac is explained during cross ex or the way the 1ac authors themselves describe how they think we ought to organize.

alt explanations should be a little more in depth here than they are in clash rounds because the perm usually matters a lot more in these rounds.

i think i'm in the minority here, but i think a lot of these debates are really neg favored. i mean, yeah, the perm is kind of hard, but also not really, and if you're reading a K which genuinely disagrees with the aff, there's a good chance the literature explicitly has answers to the permutation (and probably ACTUALLY disagrees with the aff, in contrast to a lot of Ks with policy affs). this won't really determine anything about how i judge debates but just a thought i have.

final rebuttals should have lots of framing and you should make it very clear what offense you're going for. impact calc is hugely important.

other stuff

dont clip

i think you can insert rehighlightings, if they misrepresent a card its their fault. if it's a part of the article that wasn't in the original card, you have to read it.

ad homs are not arguments i feel comfortable adjudicating. it complicates my role as a judge, and if the situation is so dire that it presents a safety or comfortability concern, i think going to tabroom or your coach is a much better remedy than making an argument about it. its not that im unsympathetic to these types of issues in debate, but i think that accepting the premise that my ballot is an endorsement of the character of debaters is a slippery slope which has some pretty terrible implications. this is probably the one exception i have to tech over truth. i do not care if you out-tech the other team on this position, i genuinely feel grossly uncomfortable writing and submitting a ballot on "this highschooler is a predator/racist/sexist". to be clear, this is about out of round issues. if someone is bigoted in round, im definitely willing to vote on "this rhetoric/performance is a reason to reject the team".

asking for perfect speaks will get you a perfect zero

Max Breiling Eagle High School

Last changed on Sat May 18, 2024 at 4:43 PM MDT

"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride

and wants it to be faster and wilder;

she does not want a room of his or her own,

she wants to be in the world, in the world with others

and making the world anew."

-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons

I love debate. Enough to give it 6 years of my life and likely many more. I have made a point to engage in every format and have made pretty good progress in that goal. I love the tech of Policy, NFA-LD, NPDA, but do heavily enjoy rhetorical presentation in forms like BP or PF. I'm currently a college debater and am always learning new things, but I promise to listen closely, judge with as open of a mind as possible, and offer feedback to help you improve.

I view debate as competitive story-telling. Both sides are here to tell me a story about the topic. This effects how I view most questions in debate. As a quick outline toward earning my ballot, however, I care about three things:

1) The Contents of Your Arguments

2) Why they are Important

3) How they Compare and Interact with Your Opponent's Arguments

If you articulate to me these three things better than your opponent, I will very likely vote for you. Other than that, I want to hear your voice in the story that you want to tell. Please run the arguments and have the debate that you are most comfortable with, in the style that you are most comfortable with. I love new ideas and I love clash. If you can promise these two things, I will be entertained.

While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won, here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean on different controversial issues in the community:

Tech -----x-------------- Truth

Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card

Contextualized links --x----------------- Uncontextualized Studies

New ideas -----x----------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times

Public Forum:

While I appreciate the more rhetorical framework that PF is supposed to exist in, I like concrete impacts and a story for why those impacts matter and how they relate to the resolution. I love evidence comparison, impact analysis, and analytical examples.

I'm likely more open to theory or more progressive argumentation than your typical judge, but I love traditional argumentation as well. Tech isn't a tool for bullying or obfuscation. The burden of proof is on you to explain your argument to your opponents. If your opponents don't get your argument, that's your fault.

An argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact for me to consider it. This weird 'tricks' trend where teams sneakily toss in an independent line about voting for them isn't tech or line-by-line debate. It will only lower your speaks and my opinion of you as a debater.

I lift my pen up and stop flowing after the time for your speech runs out(I time independently).

Don't be rude to your opponents during Crossfire and allow the other team roughly equal speaking time(I keep track and it effects speaks).

Also when it comes to framing what's in the resolution/what it looks like, I am far more convinced by probability evidence("The Japanese Prime Minister says Article 9 Revision would be this") then debate theory analysis("this is the most fair ground for a debate"), please still make voter impact comparisons however if this ends up being the clash but I'd prefer to at least start in the lit base for determining what the resolution means.

On the "sticky defense" conversation. I like arguments to be extended in the summary. That being said, I don't need you to repeat word for word every argument made. For instance "extend our 5 points of defense on their first contention" would work well for me especially if you then contextualize those 5 points to the weighing.

On Kritiks, I'm honestly uncertain what that means in context of Public Forum debate. Can you make arguments or entire contentions based in "critical" theories of power? Absolutely!! In fact, when I debate in PF those are my favorite arguments to make. However, in PF you are explicitly given ground to defend which can run you into uniqueness problems. For instance, on the Japan Article 9 resolution, you can absolutely tell me that deterrence is part of a militarist mindset and even if it does technically "work" to solve an individual problem like Chinese aggression in the South China Sea that it creates a type of society or outlook that is very negative. This works because it makes sense to me on face that revising Article 9 would be a dramatic departure toward a militarist mindset/society then the Status quo. However, if you were to tell me that capitalism is bad, I'd agree with you but become confused as to how Capitalism would be any different between the squo and an article 9 revision. In plan-based formats like Policy this is solved by creating a counterplan(called an alternative) that shifts away from Capitalism but I'm unsure how you'd resolve the uniqueness issue in PF. However, if you think your argument makes sense in a PF paradigm, then I'd love to hear it.

Policy

I want clash and comparison, not scripts and uncontextualized framework fights.

Like most judges, I view the Negative as having the burden of rejoinder of a prepared affirmative opponent. What this means in practice:

Conditionality, I lean Aff. 1-2 CPs and 1 Alt plus the squo is very reasonable for fruitful engagement over the Affirmative. Every added Counter-advocacy after that is exponentially more potential negative worlds added and I lean more to depth over breadth when it comes to clash and do believe complaints about time from the Aff can be very valid(Having only 30 seconds in the 2AC per CP for instance is often not a very productive debate). That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more).

I define dispositionality as "if there is offense on the shell, the Neg can't just kick it." it's my default view on disads and I could be persuaded to apply it to CPs if the Aff put in the work. I will not reanimate turned Das though if they're not extended in the 1 and 2ar. You have to make the strategic decision to go for them.

On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; I need direct solvency advocates to buy these as legitimate and I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. If consulting is a ten minute phone call from the President, I don't see why that can't happen while Congress passes the plan. If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.

Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, don't think of them as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP.

2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.

Kritiks:

Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.

I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.

Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.

That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy.

Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial. A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.

For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.

Critical Affirmatives:

I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic. I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.

If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.

However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.

I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!

Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.

For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.

Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.

To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.

Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.

My threshold for dismissing "conservative" arguments is very high. Especially if I'm not sure what a conservative even is anymore. If an argument wouldn't get a professor or teacher fired, I think it's educational to learn how to clash with it.

"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.

I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue, neither is a microaggression that we can resolve informally. Also I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, feel free to interrupt a speech or wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive game getting in the way.

If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). In the 2002 CEDA Finals I would've voted for Michigan State CM over Fort Hays RR. Both were very close debates for good reason, but that's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.

Theory: It's an organized way of explaining that your opponents have somehow violated the rules or desirable norms of debate. I will admit that I have always felt policed by theory so run it at your own risk. That being said, if you win, you win. I have voted in favor of the interp more than the counterinterp despite my own embarrassment at that fact.

Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow in an offense/defense paradigm.

Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." More rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.

"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.

Matt Casas Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 1:23 PM CDT

College Policy: Emporia (2012) + KCKCC (2013-'15) | Sems Of CEDA, Doubles At NDT, Won NPDA (2015), Attended Weber Round Robin (2014) and Kentucky RR (2012).

High School Policy: 2009-'12 @ Millard South | 3 TOC Bids, Sems at Berkley, Won NE State CX (2012).

---->
I was primarily a Kritik debater in high school and a Performance/Method debater in college.

No matter the form or content that you are presenting, there are disads, permutations, impact turns, links, no-links, internal links, framework, topicality, sequencing, evidence comparison, and all that jazz to be had.

I am most comfortable in a Clash Of Civilizations (Traditional Vs. K) or K Vs. K debate, but I am open to adjudicating outside of my comfort zone, weighing all kinds of arguments, barring horrendous ones.

I find myself voting on framing, impacts, and internal links as a default. Clash - or contrast - matters.

I love unique spins on resolutions and flipping the script on debate conventions (be unique) while also *using* debate conventions (offense vs. defense, evidence, claim + warrant, comparisons, ethos/pathos/logos).

I have judged over a decade of LD (and even PF) at this point but it is still not my forte. Your jargon, or even how you view the debate in front of us, may be lost on me at times. Assume the worst and hedge, and we can get back on track.

For all debate styles: A good speech is a good speech, a great speech is an art form, and the epic totality of all your speeches should feel fresh, immersive, and have levels to it.

By the end of the debate, it's helpful for me if you emphasize clarity and substance above over-extending yourself on the flow, though you should 100% cover what you need on each flow.

Examples rock. Paint a picture. I'm a visual learner who benefits from repetition.

Show me the debater you are, and I will do due diligence to adapt. Play to your strengths.

Truth over tech (the line-by-line), but tech still matters greatly unless and until a cluster of arguments is formed and won that sets and sways the rhythm, tone, and flow of the debate.

Extend your arguments and evidence, not just your taglines, authors, and dates. Address when your opponent does the bare minimum.

I find that some teams don't capitalize enough on concessions or "moments" in debates, or they do so in a way that is merely surface-level. Use it to frame them out of the debate. Go all in (your mileage may vary).

Interact with the crux of their arguments - the best version of what they are saying - directly on the line-by-line and put offense and defense on the flow. Tilt the scales every chance you get. Control the line-by-line.

I try to flow cross-ex, but no guarantees. This is typically my favorite part of the debate.

Speed is fine. Whether it's good for your precise, situationally-dependent speech, or even just the point you are on, is an entirely other thing.

Clarity over speed, always. Especially for the last 3 speeches.

Seriously, slow down on taglines and analytics. Time constraints? I would rather you be strategic with your time than speed/throw everything at the wall, with the risk that little, if any, of it sticks.

I reward debaters via speaks when they a) start their rebuttal speeches with (valuable) overviews, b) take risks (bonus points when they pay off), c) keep the flows in order or at least mitigate the chaos of a million tiny arguments, and d) have great cross-ex's and bring that same energy and clarity for speeches.

I will disclose speaks if asked.

Don't let the debate get close.

I find that strategic usage of time in rebuttals can make or break a ballot, so I might suggest taking a breath to emphasize key factors in your debate.

Don't out-spread yourself trying to out-spread the opponent. A few well-developed, top-level arguments are better than a few blippy, under-developed shadow-extensions. Take that extra second to strategize the big picture before you dive in.

Of course, you could convince me to defer against my default paradigm.

Role Of The Ballot (ROTB) debates are more than just a blip; I invite both teams to interact with framework arguments in a meaningful way because they become lenses for evaluating everyone's impacts organically.

Consider informing me what my ballot does, and how I should evaluate the debate in front of us. Help me feel it with the weight and rhythm of your arguments. Be proactive on this front.

I want to be able to use what you said in your last speech to genuinely help make my decision. Spend time on the arguments that you are legitimately going for.

Going too fast is just as bad as going too slow.

Yes, you can ask questions during prep.

Run your own prep time.

Email chain is preferred for sharing cards, and I do read the cards. I may ask for you to send all cards you go for in last rebuttal at end of debate.

Email: mattc743@gmail.com

Most of all, just try to have fun.

Sam Church Liberal Arts and Science Academy

Zoran Jeffrey Curgus Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 4:02 PM EDT

Introduction (I forgot to Update)

Note for Last-Chance: I basically forgot to update my paradigm again. I will be judging LD, so here is the TDLR: I am a progressive judge, no Tricks, literally run whatever you want. I will note that I would rather you run what you are most comfortable and best in. I'd rather watch a good Trad round than watch you run a K badly because you think it will give you points because it's my favorite argument. This is the best piece of advice I will give you! Other than that, good luck; also, don't be afraid to run trad because I am progressive. I am open to both!!!

Education

Lincoln East High School 2018 - 2022

Columbia University 2022 - Present

Pronouns

He/Him/His

Email

Please add me to the email chain zjdino27@gmail.com.

Bio

Hello, my name is Zoran, and I've been competing in debate/speech for the last four and a half years (yeesh). I was a part of the Lincoln East Debate/Speech teams, where I've competed in two years of LD, two years of Policy, three years in Extemp, and a mixture of congress here and there. Overall had great success in the Nebraska circuit on both teams, qualified for Nationals in Policy, Extemp, and Congress multiple times, and competed at NIETOC (Speech). I also competed on the National circuit in high school for both LD/Policy, so I understand the differences between national and local. Currently, I compete with the Columbia Debate Society, where I judge APDA and compete in APDA/BP. Lastly, I am studying Political science and Business.

General Information

Online

Cameras: I am perfectly fine if you have your camera off for reasons, whether it be for tech/personal matters. I will have my camera on and would be happy if all of you did the same, but I understand, given the circumstances.
Speed: Generally, go a little slower and speak louder for online rounds; this will help everyone involved in the current round!

Speed/Clarity

I am good with higher speeds, do keep in mind it's been a while since I've competed in the high school circuit, so I will need a bit of time to adjust. I will say SPEED if you are going too fast. On the other hand, please be CLEAR; people don't understand how important it is. I do not care that I have the speech doc. I will say CLEAR two times for each speaker. If you continue to be unclear, I will drop speaks and not flow your speech.

Revised Speaks

30: Best speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Perfect speech | 99th percentile
29.0 - 29.9: Top speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | little to no flaws | 90th percentile
28.0 - 28.9: Above average speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Few flaws | 75th percentile
27.0 - 27.9: MID speaker at tournament | Flaws were present | 50th percentile (Where most speaks will now fall)
26.0 - 26.9: Below Average Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Many flaws | 25th percentile
25.0 - 25.9: Weak Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Filled with flaws | 10th percentile
Below 25: You said something egregious (this has happened already at a tournament. Let's not have it happen again)

Ethics

I want to include this section because I am a biracial debater who participated in a predominantly White circuit—moreover, the lessons and equity I have seen come from the APDA circuit in college. I do not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, gender discrimination, ableism, etc., when I am judging. I will call out any form of this I see in rounds and automatically drop the team doing such acts. The team that has done such acts will get tanked speech 25 or lower, and the winning team will get 29s. This is more out of respect for what has been said in rounds.

Moreover, if you believe I may be unethical regarding how I hand out RFDS, my flowing style, or anything else. Please email me (with the email above), so I can improve in the future! Debate is fundamental to me and can be stressful and challenging for everyone. I hope this eases your tensions and sets a lens for how I view ethics in rounds.

Paradigm

TLDR

I was a progressive/traditional debater in high school, where I competed on the national and Nebraska circuits in Policy, LD, and Congress. I am fine with everything, and my favorite argument is the K. My least favorite is the CP. But I will vote on anything. I am still a newer judge, so if that concerns you, strike me, but I have judged numerous nat circuit policy rounds.

Flowing

I flow tags & authors on the case level. I fully flow entire shells for topicality/theory/FW, so please read the t-shell slowly. I am extremely annoyed when teams on the neg read the shell as evidence. It's not helpful when more and more debaters are not sending shells over speech docs, please slow down for shells at the very least. I am fine with speed, but not when it comes to a straight shell. In addition, slowing down on tags/authors also helps differentiate the flow, especially in online debate. I need to tell you are switching audibly; you can still go fast, but it should not be the same speed as the card.

Game/Education

Tbh persuade me on this, I can see both sides, so whoever is winning the flow for the round decides.

LD/Policy

General

I am combing both of these because I see a lot of crossovers already, and it's applicable where necessary. I will have an LD-specific section at the bottom for some nuance stuff.

Disclosure

I am mixed on disclosure. I will go ahead and vote on it; if you are running it, please send a screenshot with the wiki page. I am not looking for you. If AFF says they are breaking new, and it's true, don't run it. However, if you are running an identity K like anti-Blackness or are a minority debater, I am persuaded to hear disclosure bad arguments. Overall though, it is a procedural fairness argument.

Tabula Rasa

If you know what this means, you understand how I view rounds.

Plans/LARPing (LD)

I like the plan if it's formatted well and the plan text is engaging. The more hyper-specific the plan, the better. Please give me something truly unique. Also, if you want to LARP in LD by using a straight Util (Standard/Value/V-C) or insert a plan text go full f***ing ahead. I will love you. I am perfectly fine with traditional LD (more details below), but I am okay with you all breaking LD. One caveat is to make sure the plan links to the topic somehow. I will still hear the theory/FW arg on plans aff bad. But if it doesn't link, I have to vote you down (unless they drop the FW/theory, lol).

K/Performance Affs

I love K affs. I ran a Deleuze K Aff for most of the senior year; I am perfectly fine with it, but could you make sure it links to the topic in some capacity? If it doesn't, then FW/theory will be more persuasive. Also, if you are hit with theory/FW, I found it very powerful to use your authors to argue against it instead of basic analytics or general block files. Improves the ethos to such a degree. I also ran a performance Aff on anti-Blackness with Tupac lyrics. So yeah, I am the best person for this in many rounds, so this is your chance to run this stuff. Please do it!

Kritik/K

K is love, K is life. I am a K debater through the through. I am tired of policy teams not closing on the K. I understand it's not the right call, but I like it. I am also tire of policy teams running 2/3 card K (this might be a personal gripe). General links to the topic are fine but weak if the link is directly tied to the affirmative. More specific the link, the better! I only buy the perm if you de-link from the K. Like, don't read perm evidence if you didn't argue on the link debate. I am familiar with Deleuze, anti-Blackness, Cap, Set-col, and security, and I am least familiar with Puar, obscure authors, and model-minority myth. But I like a meaty K, and if you spend an entire 2NC on the K, you are my hero (please make it worth a whole 2NC).

Disad/DA

Tbh, little to say here. I like DAs like all of them (Linear politics etc.); could you ensure the link and UQ are clear? I've seen this more and more, where people run a K link with an impact with no alt. I don't know if this is a DA, but if you want to run your K as a DA without alt solvency, Go for it. Offense is offense.

FW/Theory

I will always prefer you engage with the affirmative if possible. I think boring FW/theory shells are cringe and suck the life out of interesting rounds. For example, if the aff is disclosed and mentions this, well, I find the FW/theory dumb. In addition, when it's a common K argument, It's even more cringe. Yet, I will vote on it if debated well. The only time I see theory on the level of FW necessary is if aff gets up and some Unicorns invade America, go full ahead; that ain't predictable in the slightest. I mentioned this above, but if your performance/k aff can link to the topic area, I see its relevance. On the other hand, for other theory arguments, go for them. Some are more persuasive than others. Vague alt and disclosure are always good.

Speed Theory: I am making a section for this, unless needed, such as for accommodation. This is bad in policy. I can buy this a bit more in LD, but I feel there are easy accommodations like disclosure, asking for speech docs beforehand, whatever. However, if your opponent is not accommodating to you, please run the theory and provide evidence, whether it be an email chain. I will vote on this!

Topicality

I ran a lot of topicality (minor repair test) and found it pretty cool. It might just be the NATO topic, but it's been a little confusing (probably due to topic knowledge) a lot of the t arguments, so make sure to explain in detail the t flow for me. This is arguably one of the easiest places to vote. I default to reasonability.

CP/PIC

My worse argument. I wasn't much of a counter-plan debater in high school, but I understand the nitty gritty. But, the techier the CP flow becomes, you will lose me. Also, if you are closing on the CP, could you please explain this to me? If there is one area where I could squirrel, it will be the CP/PIC flow. Also, could you make sure the CP/PIC is competitive? I am also fine with word PICs.

LD-Specific

Preface: It's been a while since I have competed in LD. I was progressive but still ran trad, when needed. I have no topic knowledge for (Columbia 2023) so bear with me.
Value/Standard/V-C: If you are running traditional, that is perfectly fine with me. I start primarily at the top level with the framework for the round. I do not care if you have the Value/V-C or just a standard. Don't think if you win FW, you win the round unless it's a Kant vs. Util round LMFAO
Contention-Level: Contention-level is where you win rounds in LD. Making sure to have strong offense and defense is key
RVI: Ye, y'all get RVIs; theory in the 1NC is hella abusive, so I buy it.
LARPing: I mentioned this earlier, but I am fine with this in LD, link to the topic, of course, but neg will probably read FW. Now, would this be amazing if you both decide to LARP; I will love you. I would email your competitor beforehand if you want to do this, and I will evalaute the round like a minature policy round.

Condo

I think Condo is good. I will listen to condo bad args, so don't worry about that. My biggest pet peeve is when going a condo route, make sure what you are closing on makes sense together or just entirely collapse to one flow in the 2NR. For example, do not close on a topicality shell and an Aropess K in the 2NR; those literally do not make sense together. But, ye, if you want to spam the flow with 3 Ks, 2 CPs, and a DA, we are chilling.

Truth vs. Tech

I prefer tech more, but I do not want the most blippy args coming out of nowhere. I see the two as compliments; the higher quality evidence with insane tech is *chef's kiss*

Tricks

Right now, I am open to trick debate (for the time being). I am still unaware of the nuance of it all and have yet to hit many tricks debaters or judged. But this will be updated if it's a terrible way to debate.

Rusty Deschenes Interlake HS

Kati Durkin Mount Vernon High School

Celine Fung Interlake HS

Brixz Eckleberry Gonzaba Lincoln East High School

Adrian Graham Wyoming Virtual Academy

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 2:03 PM MDT

Add me to the email chain: eadriang17@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------

Last updated for Stanford- 2/11/24

Debated for:

University of Wyoming 2021-23

Cheyenne East- 2017-2021

I have more knowledge and experience with policy rounds, but am not opposed to clash or K v K rounds- you guide the direction of the debate, not me

Things to help win my ballot

1. Impact Calculus- Succinct, well warranted impact calc is the key to my heart and can easily steal rounds away. Too many rounds happen where the aff assumes I hear something in the 1AC, and automatically assume their impacts are bigger than the negative's, that often not the case. Without explanation of why I should evaluate your impacts over your opponents, my path to victory should be obvious. The first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be what I write on my ballot.

2. Communication- If I can't hear you, I can't flow your arguments. This is especially true as we're mostly online, but I was never good at flowing 16, unlabeled arguments under one subpoint anyways, so probably best to slow down, even just a little bit. I'm okay with speed in general, but I'm not a machine, and if you're spreading to the point where nobody can understand you, it's impossible for me to evaluate those args. Especially on tags and in theory debates- noticing a trend of folks failing to take a breath, which in theory debates SUCKS for you :)

3. Timing- Grace periods aren't a thing. Who let y'all get away with this? When the timer stops, you're welcome to keep yapping, but know I've stopped flowing and I'm gonna give you weird looks until you sit down.

Argument Specific Stuff

Condo- probably good, but don't overdo it. I find debates where mooting as much of the aff as possible and then owning them on a thing you weren't going for anyways to be very sad, but it's a tool in the tool kit, so just don't abuse it, and for those aff teams out there who think three means go, I'm probably your guy. Also, this is probably the only theory argument that is reject the team, not the arg.

Kritiks- I'm down, just know my K lit base knowledge in general is terrible, and topic specific stuff is even worse. That doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't go for these arguments, it just means you need to do more explanation so I get the gist. Also, probably have an alt.

Tech > Truth

Theory args at the bottom of flows- I'll cry if your 3rd response to the CP is theory, your opponents will cry, and if you have another argument, followed by another theory argument, I'll cry some more. If theory becomes more developed we all need space to write them down, trying to sandwich your subpoint z as to why condo is a good thing between other spots on the flow is messy and unfun for everyone.

Judge Kick- I don't do it unless told otherwise by the neg, and can be convinced by the aff not to do so.

Tech- I'm probably like, medium tech on the scale. I get most complex args, but I won't pretend like my eyes don't glaze over a little bit in some clash rounds, or 20 minute framework overviews on a Kritik. Part of this is absolved by slowing down on these more complex topics (see above) the other part is absolved by not going off the rails.

Meta Debate Stuff

Don't steal prep. I will be upset if you say you're done taking prep, and continue to click things on your computer for up to a minute afterwards, especially if it's obvious other people are prepping. Save you and your opponents the shame of stealing prep and just learn how to save a word document in less than an hour.

Be kind- the world is sad sometimes, the last place we need it is in this activity where hopefully most individuals are really brilliant people. Don't be sexist, homophobic, ablest, or racist.

Derek Hanson Glacier Peak High School

Last changed on Thu March 14, 2024 at 4:17 AM PDT

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

lauren johnson Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:10 AM EDT

laurenlucillejohnson@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Weber State University - presently

Assistant Coach at Western Washington University. 2020-2022

Graduate Assistant Coach at the University of Wyoming 2018-2020

I debated for Gonzaga University 2014-2018

Do what you do best and feel most comfortable and confident forwarding in the debate- I judge a myriad of styles and types of arguments in debates- while my paradigm gives you a sense of how I view decision-making calculus- I first and foremost view my role as a judge as an ethical educator.

Kritiks- I enjoy critical debates. Feel free to run them on both sides. I am well versed in feminist/queer, postmodern, and gender theory, although I am also familiar with other critical literature bases. The link debate is the most important part of a critique for me. Really good impact analysis does not matter if there is no link to the 1AC. I also think that performative links are valid arguments and can be used as reasons for why the permutation does not solve. I generally think the aff should get perms although can be persuaded otherwise in an instance where the aff is not about the resolution or in pure methods debates.

Role of the Ballot - I think the role of the ballot is to vote for who wins their arguments and does the better debating. If you have an argument otherwise, I will be more persuaded/default to a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think it's dishonest and transparently one-sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation.

Aff framework versus the K- Your interpretation should probably say you should get to weigh your impacts vs. the K. I prefer debates about the substance of the arguments over debates that end up being exclusively about aff framework, if your framework argument ends up mooting the substance of both the aff and the K (aff solvency and alt solvency) then it becomes a messy debate that I will not enjoy adjudicating.

Performative/Non-Traditional Debates - I think the aff should be about something pertaining to the topic and recommend something be done that is different than the status quo (does NOT have to be a plan or involve the United States Federal Government). If the aff chooses to not do this, they'll have to win why the topical version of the aff can't solve for the performance/discussion that the aff began and win an impact turn to framework. In terms of impact analysis. You should be able to explain what reasonable neg ground exists versus your aff that is within the realm of topic-related research. That said, I'll still vote for an aff that is not about the topic if they win their impact turns to framework/accessibility questions.

Framework versus Performative/Non-Traditional Affs- I think that the negative either has to win that there is a ‘topical’ version of the aff that can solve for the substance and performance/discussion of the affirmative, or that their interpretation of debate can allow for better access to the solvency mechanism/ address the impacts of the affirmative. I say ‘topical’ because I am generally unpersuaded that the aff must defend the “hypothetical enactment of the plan by the USFG”, I think that the negative has to prove that the affirmative either justify an interpretation of the topic that makes it impossible to be prepared to debate this particular aff, or that the affirmative is not grounded in a methodology that changes something in the status quo or the lives/experiences of the debaters in the round. I think that the best deliberative model of debate is one in which the affirmative presents a strategy that can generate effective deliberation on a topic because it is something that is contestable and allows for a debate to occur regarding the desirability and effectiveness of two competing strategies/methods to address the affirmatives impacts/concerns.

Topicality- If the debate becomes a large T debate, please slow down so I can get the nuances and particularities of the arguments and debate. I flow on paper so keep that in mind. Limits and predictability are not impacts they are internal links. Discussing how limits and predictability impact debate/ research/ neg prep and what that means in terms of education etc. (This also goes for framework)

Theory- Generally, I think reasonable conditionality (example: 1 Kritik and 1 CP) is a good thing but conditionality bad arguments can be used strategically. I generally err neg on theory arguments that are not conditionality, but I am open to persuasion by either side of the debate.

Counterplans- I generally will vote on a counterplan if you win that you solve the aff, which means you don’t particularly need to win a big risk of your offense to win.

Disads- You need a good disad turns case argument or a case take out to be a round winning strategy. Most of the time I will filter my decision for case versus the disad debates through impact calculus.

Mukul Kumar Interlake HS None

Trent Kuykendoll Bellingham High School

Trent Kuykendoll (he/him)

Bellingham High School/Sehome High School/Squalicum High School

Add me to the chain: trentkuykendoll@gmail.com

For Puget Sound Nat Quals:

Considering I'll be seeing most if not all of you multiple times throughout this tournament, please make it interesting for me. This is a great opportunity to start breaking fun new strats for state/other end of year tournaments. I'll lower speaks based on lack of creativity. Rest of paradigm remains the same.

Update:

If there is a significant skill-mismatch between teams, the better team has an obligation to make the round accessible in my opinion. I'm tired of seeing way more experienced teams just beating up on newer teams, so from here on out I'm going to give low-speaks if I see that. Same situation if you're running tricks.

Top

I’m a TAB/flow judge. Tech > truth, however, will intervene (specifically in impact weighing) if those arguments go unaddressed by both teams. Also, I do judge kick if you're condo or uncontested. Anyone who needs you to spec judge kick is an LD nerd. Here is a pref cheat-sheet before we go into the weeds:

Speed Clarity ---------------------x------- Spread

Depth More args ---------------------X------- More development

Topicality Non-voter --------X-------------------- #1 Issue

Inherency Non-voter --X-------------------------- #1 Issue

K Debate Maybe Cap ------------------------X---- Try your craziest strat.

Impacts Magnitude -------------------X--------- Probability

K Affs Nah ----------------------X------ Yeehaw

Performance Nah ---------------------------X- Yeehaw

Fairness I/L ------X---------------------- Independent Voter

Education I/L ---------------------------X- Independent Voter

Theory Vios DTA --------X-------------------- DTD

Condo Bad -------------------X--------- Good

PICs Bad ---------X------------------- Good

Agent CPs Bad ----------------------X------ Good

Adv. CPs Bad ------X---------------------- Good

Int. Fiat Bad -------------------X--------- Good

Stock Issues

I have no loyalties to stock issues and winning a stock issue on the neg will not win the round. I need a reason to vote against a team that is un-topical, has no inherency, etc. I often have a hard time buying half-baked T arguments. If you’re going for topicality, you should probably collapse to T in the 2NR. The other stock issue I have my gripes with is inherency. Full disclosure, I almost never buy that a lack of a barrier to the plan is coherent argument, (however if you can win a round on inherency alone for a plan that has not been implemented already, I’ll give that team perfect speaks… good luck). As far as other stocks go, explain why they’re relevant to the ballot and please, for my sanity, don’t say “harms”.

Theory

A 2-hour round is non-negotiable as are -isms. Outside of these, the rules are for you and your opponents to agree upon and if there is something in round that you don’t agree with, run theory on it (this includes Flex prep, tag-team, etc.). <-Read my paradigm on this portion and stop asking. If it does not require the round to be stopped, I will not intervene and I will tell you as much if asked (this means I don’t have any opinions on tag-teaming, flex prep, clipping, altered speech times, etc. unless brought up as a theory argument). I tend to be more willing to drop specific arguments or err one way on evidence or during ties. This being said, I am more likely to drop the team if the round is collapsed to that theory argument in rebuttal. I have no problem with Affs kicking case and going for theory.

I enjoy well developed (emphasis on well developed) theory rounds. I tend to skew condo good, unless the neg is running 3+ conditional counter-advocacies. I have a much lower threshold to buy DTA than DTD/DTT. If you go for drop the debater, I will expect the abuse, real and potential, to rise to the level at which only dropping the team is a sufficient sanction. For this reason, if you want me to buy a DTD argument, I would recommend going for that alone in the second rebuttal, regardless aff or neg.

If you have further questions, ask pre-round.

Chloe Kwan Liberal Arts and Science Academy

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 8:13 AM CDT

T/L

Hi, I'm Chloe

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the email chain - cskaustin2@gmail.com

LASA '23

Penn '27 (I don't debate in college but coach ld for Harker and policy for LASA)

TLDR

- Tech > Truth, if they drop an argument it's true, but you have to explain what it is and why it matters

- Impact calc is your friend and wins debates

- Your 2AR/2NR writes my ballot at the top

- Flow and do line by line

- I get we're coming back from online debate but that's no excuse to steal prep, it's just obvious now

- Above all, have fun and be nice to each other! Smiles make me smile and speaker points go up.

T (what's that)

I love T. I actually think this topic is pretty neg biased, but I can be convinced otherwise. I default to competing interpretations. Let's not read blocks at each other and do some line by line!

CPs (the only thing relevant for policy teams this year)

Go for it! I err neg on process and agent counterplans, but the aff is probably right about no international and private actor fiat. I used to be a big fan of consult NATO, so if you can make it competitive, more power to you. Some big school is inevitably gonna break some tiny-ass aff that does nothing, in which case go for a process CP (Sam I'm looking at you).

DAs (if you can find them)

I love a good CP/DA debate. PTX DAs always become a question of evidence quality. I'm totally down to have a DA throw down. Specific DA links are important, especially when this topic is filled with generics.

Edit: I take it back. I don't care if your DA links are specific on this topic. If you can find a coherent da, you're doing great.

Ks (you'll just have to figure out my hot takes)

Clash is an impact. Fairness is an impact.

The aff prob gets their plan. Links don't have to be to the plan but you need to explain why you get the links that you do.

Cap, Tech-O, and Set Col are what I used to read. I’ll listen to any K, but I’m not the best with high theory. I swear to god if someone says the word "Baudrillard" I'm going to vomit.

No, death is not good. No, I will not vote for any offensive arguments. If you're asking yourself if there should be a trigger warning there probably should be so that everyone involved can have a comfortable experience.

I'm realizing I think framework really does make the game work, so a K aff is probably an uphill battle but not unwinnable.

Framing

I have a slight bias towards extinction outweighs separate from util. I'm also super sympathetic to a util turns structural violence argument if it's specific.

Theory

Go off, err neg on everything.

I generally believe that infinite condo is good, if you're a novice reading some varsity team member's condo blocks, I get it, I did it my novice year, but obviously better to have your own blocks that you're familiar with and understand. (+0.1 if you say Sam made you do it).

I will vote on ASPEC, my favorite argument in debate, BUT ONLY IF IT'S DROPPED AND YOU IMPACT IT OUT. "They dropped ASPEC" isn't enough.

Matt Liu Wyoming Virtual Academy

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:22 AM MST

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

Laura Livingston Sehome High School

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 1:17 PM EDT

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Meghan Matuszeski Millard North High School

Ryan Morgan Interlake HS

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 1:31 PM PDT

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
"Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

"Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

Adrienne OBrien Green Canyon High School

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 4:56 AM MDT

LD and PF - I'm very tech over truth, but I love empirical evidence. I do vote off of cross - I also love it when you lay out your points and tell me how to vote. I don't mind a far-fetched argument as long as you have some evidence. I also value solvency, even if you have to stretch on solvency.

Speech - I love passion and confidence.

Policy Debate - I am a lay judge with three years of experience judging LD/PF debates. My son participates in policy debates. Recently, I completed a judging season on the national circuit, gaining a better understanding of the fundamentals. Although I grasp some debate terminology, I'm still not fully proficient, so please avoid using overly complex language.

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

Off-time roadmaps - I LOVE off-time roadmaps.

Spreading/Spewing - I have found this past season that I don't mind speeding or spewing. As long as I have the document, feel free to deliver your arguments rapidly. I rely heavily on the document but have developed the ability to flow somewhat by listening. While clarity is not critical, I need to understand where you are in the document. Shout those taglines!

Arguments:

Kritiks- Although I'm open to kritiks, you might need to simplify them as if I were a 5-year-old. I'm not deeply familiar with all the literature. While I'm open to framework arguments, I'm not very into theory, so please explain everything as if I were 5. I prefer if the alternative to the Kritik relates to the real world and you prove how it solves the issues rather than just focusing on the framework. Please explain the whole story of the kritik - the links, the internal connections, the impacts, and the alternatives.

K Affs - I was exposed to them last season, and I find them difficult to understand, and I don't think they stick to the topic. Run them at your own risk.

T/Theory - I don't love the idea of theory because it takes away from the debate; however, I will still evaluate it if there is actual in-round abuse. The threshold for proving the in-round abuse is going to be pretty high.

However, topicality is a little bit different. I believe it is the aff's burden to be topical, so if the neg can solidly prove why it is untopical and how that hurts the debate space, I will vote on it.

Counterplans - I love counterplans. I will not vote on a counterplan if it doesn't have a net benefit. I will not kick out counterplans for you. I will not judge kick for you. Please be very clear on what you are kicking. If the CP doesn't solve for the DA and you don't kick out of the CP, you will lose on both. Going along with net benefits, please specify which one it is because I am still new and learning to evaluate everything.

Disads - This is pretty basic; make it make logical sense. Tell me the story of the disad, and link it to the impact. I like a good extinction impact, and I'm very pleased if you can convince me, but I will admit that very few teams have been able to get me there. Shout out to the team who argued no IRS = extinction. It was beautiful.

Case - The aff should be a clear and coherent story. I am heavy on solvency, so you must prove solvency. If you don't prove how this is an issue, you lose. Extend your evidence; your best evidence should be in the 1AC.

Other thoughts - I am very story-driven. Tell me how we get to where we get to. Outline it very clearly for me. I love off-time roadmaps so that I can organize the flow better. I will try to keep up, but there are no guarantees I will catch everything. Your cards are critical. I rely heavily on them. The more organized your cards are, the better. Don't be afraid to tell me how you are winning in the cards. Spell it out, highlight it, bold it - color it, and keep sending it to me until the very end; I don't care if it's the same cards --- remind me why you are winning! It's a crutch I'm happy to use until I get better. Make sure your cards are up to date. I've voted against teams specifically because of outdated cards that were obsolete. It's policy, and you are arguing for real-world change. I've witnessed a seasoned judge checking recent news to verify if a cited card was applicable, and unfortunately, it wasn't. As a result, that team lost. I adhere to that approach. Take everything with a grain of salt, though, because I am still a new policy judge trying to get the hang of everything; there will be updates the more I figure out what I like and dislike! Debate hard and have fun!

Elena Olteanu Interlake HS

Kwudjwa Osei Rock Hill HS

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 4:55 PM EDT

Email: ema3osei@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

Debated at University of Pittsburgh

I think about debate strategically primarily. Bad strategy => bad decision-making => bad comparison => bad debate. Lack of argument comparison also generally means more of a focus on skill than arguments which makes for less substantive feedback which has a negative feedback loop on the quality of judging experienced by debaters and the growth of teams themselves in my view. Substance is cool even when the substance is literally just about the meta-game.

I like judging different things, there are many different styles and many get overlooked or forgotten, so do your thing and do it well. I have a higher threshold for how you answer presumption in rounds without a plan and will filter a lot of the debate through solvency.

I'm typically more interested in a K that has offense either about the consequences of the plan or the consequences of the process but if you can win your overarching thesis claim outweighs plan/method focus, then go for it. The whole point of a K is to disagree with the assumptions of the affirmative so I don't understand the turn to agree with the affirmative's assumptions about how it should be evaluated vis-a-vis their various interps.

If you have a K that fundamentally disagrees with the epistemic starting point of the affirmative, then the latter part of the prior statement probably applies more than the former two even if you do have an embedded impact turn to the affirmative considering you likely have epistemic disagreements on starting points that inform what counts as an impact turn and also how to evaluate it comparative to other arguments on the level of uniqueness.

I don't have any specific feelings about framework as long as you're doing impact comparison. Regardless of whether you are winning a procedural or a terminal impact, it doesn’t really mean you auto win unless you have effectively zero’d/excluded all the opposing team’s offense, so offensive applications of impacts matter, if only from a strategic point of view.

Everything else is pretty round-by-round, please pic out of things, use theory intelligently and capitalize on mistakes and cross-examination early. Things may be unfair but unfairness can be justified or argued to not be unfair if a team lacks core justifications against competing claims to uniqueness/barriers to effective implementation. Same reason the neg gets to exclude the entire aff from evaluation if they win the procedural comes before aff offense.

Always keep in mind that just because you're right doesn't change the fact that you're still a debater doing debate. Every round is different and every debater debates/interprets arguments differently, so don’t switch up. Popular opinion (in debate) rarely matches reality anyway.

Please think about what is your strongest argument instead of ones that are superfluous, waste time, are unfamiliar to you, or otherwise have no strategic value. I try to give good speaks, but rarely super high. I prefer debates with fewer sheets. Don’t spread faster than is comprehensible and prioritize clarity. Make it make sense.

A dropped argument is not a true argument, though it may be persuasive. Micro-aggressions exist but so do mistakes. Your standard for how to engage them is likely biased and/or strategic. The easiest way to engage is to be a less than terrible person. If you have to worry about that you have more personal work to do.

Anyways, see ya~

Yulan Peng Interlake HS

Charlie Potter Hire

ec powers Niles West High School

Last changed on Wed May 15, 2024 at 5:25 AM MDT

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

rebound23sp@gmail.com

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal BUT most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. However, teams calling out the reading of an author and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker/Bostrum) is totally fair game.

Prefer debates where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that the AFF is bad. What this means is open to interpretation.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not.

Enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and uses that story to implicate other portions of the debate.

I am willing to vote on condo bad.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts.

Hidden Aspec is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding Aspec will have a speaker point implosion.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (I go by my initials if that helps with pronunciation.)

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

Jason Regnier Mount Vernon High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:32 PM EDT

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 19 years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: Since Tabroom stopped making speaker points accessible, I honestly don’t really even know what they mean anymore. I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.7 or 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Answer your own cross-ex questions. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

Ashlin Richardson Corner Canyon High School

Steve Rowe Mount Vernon High School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 7:00 AM PDT

Last updated 1/12/24:

I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.

Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org (i'm not at Interlake anymore, but still using this account).

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

Mt. Vernon will be my first tournament on this topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have a good public policy and economics background, but please explain things.

If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

Kritikal Affs

It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.

----------------------------------------

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

----------------------------------------

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

Lila Rowland Eastlake High School

Jet Semrick ADL

Last changed on Fri May 17, 2024 at 2:15 PM CDT

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com

Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. Currently, my full time job is to teach and research the high school topic.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

Huicheng Song Interlake HS

Sarah Stevenson-Peck Eagle High School

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 7:55 PM EDT

Hi! I’m Sarah. I use she/they pronouns. I graduated from Penn State in the spring of 2022. I’m now at Cornell Law School. I currently don’t have any program affiliation, but I love the activity and am glad to be involved however I can. If you have questions about this paradigm, any of my decisions, want to talk about law school applications, or just need a friendly ear, feel free to reach out via Facebook or email (ses452@cornell.edu).

General things

I’m a person first, educator second, and adjudicator third. You do what you enjoy and I’m excited to learn from you. Tell me what to do with the ballot and I’ll listen.
I’ll do my best to be tabula rasa. I’ll share my biases because I can’t be perfectly neutral as much as I might want to. Everything in this paradigm (except decent human being things) are only defaults, you can change them easily with an argument.
Tech over truth but it’s way better when your arguments are at least dubiously true.
I’d like novices to stick broadly to the topic and to reasonably understandable arguments. It helps nobody to hand your novice a Baudrillard file. I’m pretty willing to fill in the gaps for novices making smart arguments who don’t make them in technically correct ways.
I’m good with speed if and only if everyone in the round is, please slow on tags.
Don’t do things to make the debate community a worse place. It shows a lot more skill to win elegantly and cleanly by an inch than to bash the other side and win by a mile.
Please make complete arguments - this means at minimum have internal links, ideally ones with warrants. If your argument isn’t complete, I can’t vote on it even if nobody points out the flaws.

I get that there are things the community universally accepts even without links (e.g. politics disads) and I’ll probably give those to you if nobody points out the lack of links. I’ll err on the side of granting them for predictability but I want to be up front that since I’m new to judging I don’t know yet where my threshold is.

It’s fun and makes for less frustrating decisions when you weigh and meta-weigh.
CX is underutilized and it would be cool if you accomplished something with it.
Things I reserve the right to stop the round and give you the L for:

Doing or reading something the other side explicitly asked you not to do for mental health reasons
Misgendering someone after being corrected
Explicit bigotry (exception: if everyone in the round agrees beforehand to test arguments like “sexism good for econ,” I think that can be educational. But you can’t spring that on someone)
Making arguments about sexual violence or suicide without ASKING the other side if it’s okay. Content warnings that do not ask are not okay. If you do this I will stop you and confirm with everyone in the round that it is okay before continuing, and if it’s not and you can’t read a different position, the round will end and you will lose
Ad hominem arguments - you can attack the argument or the framing, but not the person or intention

Feedback and evaluation

In novice or JV divisions, I’ll type out notes mid-speech. I think it’s more important that you get specific feedback than that my flow is perfect. In open, I’ll prioritize my flow but make a point to be extremely detailed during the RFD. The distinction is mostly that open debaters can benefit a lot more from strategic analysis. I’ll also do everything I can to give you tips on fixing errors instead of just pointing them out. If you feel like you’d learn more from a different kind of feedback than this, just let me know and I’m happy to oblige.

Speaker points are silly, arbitrary, and biased. My hope is if enough people simply refuse to take them seriously, it will disavow people of the notion that they have any value as a metric and we can get rid of them. As such, you’re all getting 30s unless you do something worth getting 0.

Ballot comments on Tabroom go to you and your coach (and anyone else with access to your team's Tabroom page). Nine times out of ten this is good for education. If for some reason (and I won't ask the reason), you do not want your coach to see your feedback, just let me know privately and I'm happy to give feedback orally or share it via PDF in the Speechdrop instead of putting it on the ballot.

Counterplans

Dispo > condo (dispo means a CP is like a disad where you can extend defense but can’t kick out of offense)
Two condo fine if it’s a CP and an alt, more than that probably bad
Perms are probably advocacies

Theory

I-meets are terminal defense on theory
Competing interps > reasonability. I’ve been told I think of theory in the NPDA sense more than the LD sense if that helps anyone
I don't need proven abuse. I honestly don't know what proven abuse is. If your practice is bad, it probably had some impact on strategy. You don't need to execute a bad strategy to prove that it's bad.
I’m probably more amenable to resource disparity arguments than a lot of people as a product of debating for a student-run team in college
Disclosure theory is elitist and bad. Aff disclosure is probably good, but 9/10 times people don’t do it because they don’t know how (especially with these new confusing caselist updates). Educate, don’t punish

Kritiks

Alts should either have some evidence indicating solvency in the traditional sense (of fixing the problem you present) or subvert traditional notions of solvency. Alts that do neither probably do nothing and the other side should point this out
Alts that operate in a different paradigm than the aff (e.g. discourse alts compared to policy affs) need a ROB to be cohesive. Otherwise you’re just talking past each other because the government could do the aff and you could do the alt and there’s no contradiction. Perms are really strong here and at best with these alts and no FW you win on K turns case
Fiat is illusory, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, and it would be better if you had more than “the plan isn’t real”

Performance

Nontopical affs should have neg ground and you should be able to tell us what it is during CX.

If the neg ground is theory and you then make IVIs to theory I’m going be really persuaded by arguments that there is no neg ground
It’s much preferable imo if the neg ground is topic generics (e.g. a movements case where the effect is change to election laws, a topical plan text with narrative evidence, or a critique of NFA elections in the direction of the topic)

In novice divisions you have to be topical or at least have topical neg ground - predictability reasons are overwhelming when it comes to making newbies want to stay in debate

Miscellaneous thoughts

I won't enforce the rules simply because they're the rules. Appeals to the rules are fine though if you warrant why following the rules is good.
One piece of unethically cut or cited ev → drop the arg + ballot comments to your coach. If it happens again, auto-loss. Unless you’re a novice, in which case still fix it but you get more leeway
New NR and 2AR arguments don’t get flowed
Zoom lets you do cool things and if you need to screen-share to do them that should be allowed. We ought to get something out of this virtual debate thing
Baum-Barret is a garbage card written by people who need to at minimum SKIM Rawls before incorrectly citing him. I’m pretty sure most people under the veil of ignorance would care a lot more about the threat of crushing poverty than a 1% risk of nuclear war
Evidence comparison > tons of cards that all say the same thing

I’m sure I’m missing something. I’ll try to edit as I notice things. Feel free to ask any questions before round!

Debnil Sur Lowell High School

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 7:38 AM PDT

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

Riley Talamantes Hire

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 4:53 AM PDT

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021

Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

--- LD ---

While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.

Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:

1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).

2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."

3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.

4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.

5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.

6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.

Vikram Valame ASPEC Academy

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 1:18 PM PDT

Chain: vik.valame@gmail.com

I debated with Jared Shirts at Gunn High School. Went for policy arguments. We have many of the same thoughts on debate.

Now at Northeastern University, affiliated with Harvard.

Please debate how you would like, I would love to judge a debate that genuinely changed how I view certain arguments. The only exception is “suicide good”, which I will evaluate as false.

Topicality:Please explain why your interp solves offense on both sides. If you somehow find empirics or studies for why your interpretation is better for the debate, I will weigh them far more heavily than unwarranted assertions about a hypothetical topic. I tend to view reasonability as a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for voting on procedurals.

Counterplans: Truthfully, I fail to understand why many Counterplans read in Debate actually negate either the resolution or the plan. I will be sympathetic to a negation theory argument if the affirmative team makes it. Of course, there are some good arguments for why neg fiat is necessary…

Disadvantages: 0% risk exists. 100% risk exists. Unless you win that it doesn’t… Please explain the entire story of the disadvantage in either the block or 2NR so I know what I am voting on. “Try-or-die” is an exceptionally persuasive argumentif you make it.If “turns case” isn’t intuitive, a card helps a ton.

Kritiks: I wish I was well versed in literature, but I am not. Please explain your theory or thesis in a way that I can repeat to you all in the RFD. Feel free to go for fiat bad, fiat good only for you, or any other interp. I find arguments based around criticism of durable fiat quite good.

Kaffs: Will vote either way. The affirmative either needs to go for a counter-interp or win impact turns that outweigh the entirety of the negative team’s impacts, unless you win some alternative frame through which I should view procedurals.

You also don’t have to read FW every round!I think that many Kritikal affirmatives are vulnerable to impact turns and presumption arguments because they expect to gain most of their offense by impact turning T.

Case: Presumption exists, impact turns are great. If the entire 2NR is case, I will give you lots of speaker points. Even if you read disadvantages, I find that most policy 1ACs have impacts so tenuous that a counterplan is unnecessary for the disadvantage to outweigh. Just make sure you answer try-or-die!

Notes: Jokes are good in moderation. If you explain why any organization Jared Shirts works at is bad, I will smile upon you. Any team that went for silly but oddly persuasive T-“in the United States” arguments on the water topic will be voted down. Feel free to address me as "Vikram", "you", "Judge", or "Your Honor"

Richard Wang Lowell High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:04 AM PDT

Competitive Experience: Thomas Jefferson High School (2010 - 2014), 2014 ToC (4-3, top quintile speaker).

Coaching Experience: Lowell High School (2023 - Present).

Email Chain: Yes, richard.wang.debate [at] gmail.com; please cc lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com

Online Debate

I prefer camera on but don't really care, I spend my entire working life on Zoom calls. Please check verbally or visually with all participants prior to starting your speech. Assume I'm away if my camera is off unless I tell you otherwise.

Outlook on Debate

Just do what you're good at. Nobody is a blank canvas but if you're making complete arguments I do not care what those arguments are or how they are created. I was a lazy debater and am a lazy judge, which should frame your reading of this paradigm. However, substance generally means higher speaks.

In HS, Shree was my coach and I was double 2s - my philosophy has been shaped by that experience. If you want to have a technical K v K debate, I would love to judge it.

I will only evaluate arguments pertaining to the round. Out of round ad homs are a loser and will result in a loss of speaker points.

This is impacted out further down, but I really prefer judging a debate where (1) both teams follow the LBL on each flow after overviews (if relevant) and (2) hard number substantially all arguments. This (1) makes it easier for everyone to follow and evaluate the debate and (2) saves me time as I flow on paper and want to spend my mental energy on the substance of your arguments and evidence vs. piecing together the flow during and after the round.

Tech > Truth. Every argument is functionally the same, assume I will vote based directly off where the flow is headed unless you make arguments such as "you shouldn't flow" and impact them out. Virtually nothing you can possibly say argumentatively will offend me personally, if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose. However, be a good human, this is still an educational space and people should feel personally safe.

Spin > Evidence. Properly deploying evidence in round is better than having me read it. If you tell me to read evidence post-round, It's your onus to get me to read your evidence and 2R evidence should be assembled in a card doc. But, spin only gets you so far and I will close read evidence. More below.

Claim + Warrant + Impact. If you don't present a complete and properly impacted argument, I wont vote for it. The flip-side of this is that if there is uncontested offense on the flow, I will pull the trigger regardless of quality. I will happily pull the trigger on a conceded 15 second theory argument that is properly impacted by the 2R.

I will evaluate procedurals and in-round offense first unless you convince me otherwise.

Presumption and/or Terminal Defense are real. I believe there can be 0% risk of solvency, 0% risk of an impact, 0% risk of uniqueness etc.

I prefer a Technical Knockout (TKO) whenever possible. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, including the 2NR) and explain why it is 100% unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T/SPEC argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out. Be mindful of context: calling this against materially less experience debaters in presets looks worse than against an experienced team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back to rest and prep, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

Specific Arguments

The best debates are when there is (1) substantive contestation of the arguments and (2) all participants leave the debate learning something new. Impact turns are also fun and easy to judge.

Debate Theory: just because something is in the meta right now doesn't mean it's the default. I generally evaluate theory arguments in a single round vacuum. If you properly impact out the 2R, substantially all theory arguments are winners. If you don't do so and expect me to vote on implied impacting through the meta, I'll move on to substance.

Procedurals: both T and kritikal ones are great if they are properly impacted out in the 2Rs (even if it's "You Aren't Taoist").

Case: I love deep case debates and more Ks should be case args.

CPs/CAs: having 10 reasons why 1 perm is good is better than 1 reason why 10 perms are good. Substance > spam. More Ks should be CPs/CAs.

DAs: more Ks should be DAs.

Ks: I get that the meta is generally a framework argument. However, I would much rather have a substantive debate on "prior questions" supported by the literature (vs. debate theory), methods, and/or impact turns - this is why more Ks should be CPs/CAs and DAs. Quoting Kilpatrick: "I'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should". Critical ecology is not a loser with me, and I think its exit from the debate meta does not match "actual" academic spaces.

Speaks

They are subjective and everything you do matters. I like to be entertained, whether it be through humor or an artfully executed strategic vision.

I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

I will substantially award going 1:1 down the LBL vs. just reading blocks all over the flow - especially because I flow on paper like a dinosaur.

Although tech > truth, I will reward deeply understood arguments backed by thoughtful evidence.

Speaker point inflation has been very real, and it makes me sad. However, I will not to be a demon.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Personal History Informing Debate

As a debater: generally procedural and kritikal in nature.

As a student:

BA in Economics and Political Philosophy from Cornell University (2017). I have taken graduate level courses in relevant kritikal topics like legal economics, continental philosophy, historical materialism, fem IR, and critical theory (Frankfurt, race, ethnicity, gender, ecology, penal).

I won't punish you if you fundamentally misunderstand theory, but I will grant speaker points for those that really do get it and use it to their advantage in a round. I will tell you after the round if you misunderstood. Hint: Marxist literature kritiks socialism, communism is not socialism.

Please talk to me about Cornell or a degree in Economics and/or Political Philosophy if you're interested!

As a homo economicus:

I currently am an executive at a financial technology company and previously was a hedge fund investor specializing in long/short equity and special situations. I have a deep "practicioner's" understanding of relevant policy topics such as rates, inflation, "financialization good", and tech generally. I have heterodox thoughts on the implementation of MMT.

I won't punish you if you fundamentally misunderstand economics, but I will grant speaker points for those that really do get it and use it to their advantage in a round. I will tell you after the round if you misunderstood. Hint: the internal link between monetary policy and economic activity is the cost of capital of market participants.

Please talk to me about Finance & Tech if you're interested!

Simon Weiss Opus Academy HS

Jean-Luc Willson Hire

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:29 AM MDT

Jean-Luc Willson (He/They)

Please put me on the email chain: jlfwillson@gmail.com

Updated 1/9/2024

I competed in the Wyoming high school debate circuit for 4 years and am currently a 2nd year policy debater at the University of Wyoming and debate coach for Hot Springs County High School. I request that everyone be respectful to each other both in and out of the round and I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other discrimination and intolerance.

I am well versed in LD debate as I did it for three years in high school. I like to see clash in substance, especially if the values are the same or similar. A framework debate is important, but without a winning link to said framework I see no reason to vote. Make sure to prioritize impacts in your voters. Make sure your claims are substantiated with warrants, even if there isn't evidence for your claim. Smart, logical, analytic arguments are amazing, but they need to be well explained and warranted. Debate is a space for students to do what they want, so "this isn't policy debate" isn't a real argument. Explain why what they have done is bad for LD, don't just assert that is. This is probably best done on the framework level of the debate, have a value that prioritizes theory over pragmatism and convince me that their focus on consequences is bad.

This is the format I am least familiar with so make sure to tell me in round what is the most important facet I need to vote on. Prioritize impacts over anything else. I have no familiarity with this topic, so make sure to be clear and explain your arguments in depth so I know exactly what I need to evaluate when voting

Policy

I am most well versed here as this is the format I do in college. Bottom line is that I am comfortable with any position that you would like to run. I am familiar with K debate, multi-plank counterplans, and theory debates, so perform to your hearts content as I should be able to follow along. Speed is not an issue for me, in fact I quite enjoy a fast debate, especially in the early speeches. I have absolutely no familiarity with this topic so make sure that the link chains are clearly explained and impacts are very noticeable and well explained.

DAs

Love a good DA, especially at the internal link level. The better the internals are the more convinced I will be to vote on it and that's where I think AFFs can put the most convincing pressure. Impacts are important and I love turns case arguments so give them in your overviews.

CPs

I am fairly comfortable with counterplans at both a functional and theoretical level. Perms are a test of competition, so simply winning the perm doesn't mean you get the net benefit for AFFs. I tend to kick the counterplan for negatives if they lose it and then evaluate the impacts with the status quo, so if you are against judge kick make a strong push in the rebuttals. I like to see condo debates, I tend to lean towards multiple conditional worlds, however I will look at conditionality as its own separate debate and if the AFF wins then the AFF wins the round. If you are to have a condo debate, please make it in depth and worthwhile, not shallow one liners. Make sure all counterplans have a clear net benefit and explain the specific mechanisms that they use to solve the AFF.

Case

Teams should have better case debates around a few, well-developed args in the 2NR. I like to see a bunch of stuff to test the AFF early and then boil down to one or two positions per sheet that have a really convincing story. Go in-depth and use examples and applications to show why it mitigates the solvency of the AFF and makes the DA/Alt more threatening. Teams go for too much in the 2NR/2AR, make the debate small and powerful.

Ks vs. Policy AFF

I am comfortable with kritikal debate as I run Ks in college. FW heavy Ks are valid and having an in depth discussion of how I should weigh the impacts of the round is important. Alternatives can be largely theoretical if you have a strong defense of FW, but it does make the burden of the NEG higher. Alternatives do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF nor result in the AFF but NEG teams should at least explain why I shouldn't evaluate those impacts and how it solves the links. Make sure link packages are specific to the AFF and explain the links that were made in the round. Overviews are cool because they provide an opportunity to engage with the impacts of the AFF and solvency to create a presumption push.

FW vs. K AFF

FW is a T argument at its core, so you should provide me with impacts for why their model of debate is bad for topic engagement. I will evaluate both fairness and clash as impacts, although I tend to be more persuaded by clash and skills. TVAs help a lot, give me reasons it accesses their lit base and solves your offense. I will vote on AFF impact turns, but I like to see a well developed counter-interp. This should function like a counterplan/alt that solves the AFF and NEG offense. Debating about debate is one of the most fun parts about this activity, so enjoy your opportunity to have a meta discussion about the activity you are participating in!

I am comfortable with topicality. Just like every other position, make sure to prioritize the impacts and why your opponents interpretation is harmful for debate. I probably won't vote on RVI. In depth explanations are appreciated as these debates can often become very complicated. Explain why grounds and limits are important to the debate i.e. why they are internal links to your larger impacts. 2NRs should directly compare models of debate, what does debate look like under their interpretation, what's the case list, is there a TVA? These are all very important questions to answer.

Benjamin Ye Eastlake High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:19 PM CDT

Email Chain: benjaminye[dot]email[at]gmail[dot]com

School Affiliations: Eastlake High School ('22), Northwestern University ('26 +- 1)

Topic Knowledge: 6/10---worked with Northwestern's camp this past summer, but haven't really followed the topic since. Err towards overexplanation.

Top:
Debate how you debate best. Preferences are outweighed by clear and effective argumentation.
I'm still trying to sort out my takes on debate broadly. The rest of this paradigm is a list of my thoughts so far:

Non-negotiables:
- I will try to flow to the best of my ability. Numbering, distinct tags, and pen time are great; full speed analytics, long paragraphs, and lawn mower spreading are not
- Please don't literally break debate (speech times, double wins, etc.)
- Rehighlightings should be read for me to evaluate them
- Arguments need to pass the "I can explain it back in the RFD" test

Argument biases:
- Yes judge kick. Consider this the strongest bias on this paradigm
- Conditionality is probably good
- Probably more receptive to counterplan shenanigans than most (cardless CPs, 2NC CPs, CPing out of straight turns, etc.)
- Rejecting the argument is probably sufficient for theory (barring T and conditionality)
- Fairness is probably an impact
- Teams should probably defend some model of debate

Misc:
- I'm relatively visual with facial expressions
- I think I care more than average about clarity, especially on card text
- Will call clear twice before just not flowing, it's on you to figure that out beyond that point
- No -isms, please---I'll err on the side of playing things out but will vote you down if it threatens the safety of anyone in the round
- If you're marking a billion cards, please do so as you're reading them---doing so before cx burns an abhorrent amt of time
- I am uninterested in adjudicating arguments about things that happened outside the round
- My scale for speaks still needs calibration, will try to aim for 28.6-ish for 3-3 bracket but please don't read into them too much
- (Online) Camera off = not here and not ready

Login to Tabroom

MOUNT VERNON Invitational NIETOC TOC BIDS available

2024 — Mount Vernon, WA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges